[lac-discuss-es] ccTLD .CO

[Andres Piazza]

Estimados, 
 Algo conversamos en la teleconferencia pasada acerca del ccTLD .CO y muchos de nosotros nos expresamos sobre el particular.

Aprovecho para copiar aqui una cadena de la lista Internet Governance Cactus.

Hay que leer los correos de abajo hacia arriba para seguir el Hilo. 

Debo decir que la opinion de Carlos Afonso me identifica.

Saludos, 

Andres Piazza

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa en gmail.com>

Date: 2010/4/8
Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
To: governance en lists.cpsr.org, David Goldstein <goldstein_david en yahoo.com.au>



This may be interesting to many as it can serve as case study from the

developing world:



There are many ccTLD disparities prevalent in the developing world.

For example in the case of Pakistan, the official ccTLD for .pk was

given in the time of IANA to a Pakistani based in the US who has now

come back to Pakistan. The ccTLD www.pknic.net.pk was under an IANA

allocation and wasn't shifted to the new ICANN contracting. For a

country of 170 million plus population the following are the domain

registration stats where only 29557 domains have been registered:



stats for PKNIC

2010-04-07:

domains: 29557

nameservers: 1179



There is consumer in-confidence in PKNIC, people are reluctant to take

over-priced domains from PKNIC. PKNIC only registers domains for a

period of two years for $25 a domain whereas a TLD can be acquired for

only $16 for two years. Each time the debate on decentralization of

PKNIC comes up, PKNIC has connection in the high up places and is

easily able to revoke such efforts.



When we started raising these issues, PKNIC invited and included some

of our Civil Society members to its board of advisers and the members

fell for it and felt so honoured to be included in the board that they

forgot what the actual Internet Governance problems were. They still

continue to participate in the IGC but are prone to PKNIC interests

which of course is a very big drawback.



PKNIC has occasionally broken down in its service with outages

sometimes over weeks. Our CS members have started gaining certain

interests from PKNIC which were publicly questioned by both the local

and international communities as visible publicly here:

http://public.icann.org/node/343.



PKNIC's monopoly cannot be broken through a public-private partnership

between civil society, academia, private sector and govt

multistakeholder collaboration. The result is that people are more

oriented to acquire TLD domains as per today the total TLD domains in

the country stand at approximately:



Total Domains in Pakistan : 41,380

(Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/PK)



IF we look at our neighbouring country India, their ccTLD runs as a

multistakeholder partnership due to which they have more than half a

million local domains. Similarly their TLD registrations are also at

the same number:

Total Domains in India : 559,213

(Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/IN)



This clearly shows that allowing ccTLD's to monopolize their positions

in the country effect the citizens of those countries in the following

ways:



1. No control over ccTLD monopolies

2. Access low-cost ccTLD

3. Have to buy more TLD instead of ccTLD

4. Less consumer choices

5. Cost of entry to Internet/Web too high

6. Lesser opportunities for local initiative growth (with respect to

building local online activities backed by local domains)

7. Threat to IDNs and GTLD operations when the same ccTLD operator can

influence govt and other groups to host their GLTDs/IDNs under the

same infrastructure.



Such monopolies have to be broken otherwise ICANN will only be

benefiting a handful.



Best Regards

Fouad Bajwa



On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:37 AM, David Goldstein

<goldstein_david en yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Carlos,

>

> Any registrar that registers .DE domain names can provide an address, even if for registrars outside Germany this can be a headache. Nominet has no restrictions I am aware of. AuDA has restrictions that say for com.au addresses the person or organisation must have an Australian business number from the tax office and the name must have some relationship with their work.


>

> And when there are over 13 million domains, such as .DE and over 8 million (.UK) it *IS* much harder to get your preferred domain name than say, if there are over one million (.AU and .CA).

>

>

> Regards

> David

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message ----

> From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca en cafonso.ca>

> To: governance en lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david en yahoo.com.au>

> Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 10:58:41 PM

> Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs

>

> David, some additional comments below.

>

> --c.a.

>

> David Goldstein wrote:

>> Carlos et al,

> [...]

>> Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the

>> registration process, but this is often easily provided by a

>> registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably

>> number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around

>> the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world

>> hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.

>

> Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific

> policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal

> German address: "It is possible for individuals or institutions (that

> have legal capacity) not located in Germany to register .de domains.

> There is, however, a condition, namely that they must appoint an

> administrative contact who is resident in Germany and who has a postal

> address at which it is possible to serve documents (i.e. not a mere P.O.

> box). The administrative contact is then also the person formally

> authorized by the domain holder to receive service of official or court

> documents (Zustellungsbevollmächtigter) within the meaning of the German

> Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) and the German Code of

> Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The reason for this measure is

> to ensure that if any party has a legal claim to pursue, it is not made

> more difficult for them by having to serve official or court documents

> in another country, which is often a long, drawn-out process."

>

> Not sure about AuDA either, but CIRA (Canada) does require proof of

> Canadian citizenship or a legal address in Canada.

>

>> The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is

>> harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.

>

> Not sure about this. I think it might even become easier, although they

> will have to compete for certain addresses with global registrants. My

> point is that this "internationalization" just to make money defeats the

> original purpose of having ccTLDs as the realm of national identities in

> the domain name system. Otherwise, let us all join GNSO :)

>

> cheers

>

> --c.a.

>

>>

>> Cheers David

>>

>>

>>

>> ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca en cafonso.ca>

>> To: governance en lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah en gmail.com> Sent: Wed,

>> 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs

>>

>>

>> Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD...

>> :) There is a business group which convinces a community (or their

>> government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to

>> properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the

>> Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert

>> their ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.

>>

>> In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44

>>  million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South

>> American economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any

>> significant amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from

>> being Tuvalu. On the other hand, given the size of the economy and

>> Internet penetration in the country, it is hard to see how a

>> non-profit self-sustainable operation to keep their ccTLD in the

>> national commons would not succeed.

>>

>> But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),

>>  so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a

>> Colombian Internet space.

>>

>> frt rgds

>>

>> --c.a.

>>

>> McTim wrote:

>>> http://www.cointernet.co/

>>>

>>> Do we have any thing to say on this?

>>>

>>> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.

>>>

>>

>

> --

>

> Carlos A. Afonso

> CGI.br (www.cgi.br)

> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)

> ====================================

> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca en cafonso.ca

> ====================================

>

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance en lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, send any message to:

     governance-unsubscribe en lists.cpsr.org



For all list information and functions, see:

     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance



Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________